Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application claims the benefit of prior-filed application No. 63/429835 under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) or under 35 U.S.C. 119(e). If the prior-filed application is an international application designating the United States, it must be entitled to a filing date in accordance with PCT Article 11; if the prior-filed application is an international design application designating the United States, it must be entitled to a filing date in accordance with 37 CFR 1.1023; and if the prior-filed application is a nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the prior-filed application must be entitled to a filing date as set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(b) or 1.53(d) and include the basic filing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.16. See 37 CFR 1.78(d)(1). If the prior-filed application is a provisional application, the prior-filed application must be entitled to a filing date as set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(c) and the basic filing fee must be paid within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(g). See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(2).
This application is not entitled to the benefit of the prior-filed application because the prior-filed application did not include the basic filing fee within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(g). Applicant is required to delete the reference to the prior-filed application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of groups II and IIA in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “[t]here is a clear connection between the need for cleaning a dataset to reduce noise and the effective use of segmenting techniques on a cleaned dataset.” This is not found persuasive because the restriction is between details of the data clean technique and details of the data segmentation technique. Although it is useful to clean the data using the detailed cleaning technique before the segmentation, the segmentation can proceed without the detailed cleaning technique. Depending on the application, the segmentation may not even need the data cleaning because the segmentation involving linear fits will reduce the influence of noises, and/or because the measured time series data have inherently negligible noises.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4-8, 11, and 15-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected subcombinations, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/29/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0030], line 4, “but it important to know” should be --but it is important to know-- to correct a grammatical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code in [0040], [0045], and [0051]. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 1701 (see FIG. 17). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 12,
“for each segment identified in the segmentation step, determine a linear fit for a plurality of data points in the segment;
determine a slope and an intercept corresponding to each linear fit; and
evaluate differences in the determined slopes and intercepts.”
should be
“for each segment identified in the segmentation step, determining a linear fit for a plurality of data points in the segment[[;]] and determining a slope and an intercept corresponding to the linear fit; and
evaluating differences in the determined slopes and intercepts.”
to correct grammatical errors and for better clarity (note: “each linear fit” is too broad without clear boundaries).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
MPEP 2106 outlines a two-part analysis for Subject Matter Eligibility as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
Step 2, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. If the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), then the claim cannot be directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO), and thus the claim is eligible at Pathway B without further analysis. Abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions)? Yes (see analysis below).
Prong one: Whether the claim recites a judicial exception? (Yes). The claim is directed to an abstract idea because it recites the limitations beginning from “cleaning the dataset” to the end of the claim. These limitations are directed to mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (or with a pen and paper).
Prong two: Whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception? (No). The claim recites additional element of “receiving a time-series dataset corresponding to at least one measured parameter of the semiconductor equipment.” However, this is recited at a high level of generality to collect the data for the abstract idea, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements (other than the judicial exception) that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No (see analysis below).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, the additional element(s) in the claim is an insignificant extra-solution activity, to invoke a generic computer for its computing power to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. Considered as a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 13 is similarly rejected by analogy to claim 1.
Dependent claims 3, 9, 10, 12, and 14 when analyzed as a whole respectively are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they either extend (or add more details to) the abstract idea or the additional recited limitation(s) (if any) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as discussed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that sufficiently integrates the abstract idea into a practical application of, or makes the claims significantly more than, the judicial exception (abstract idea). The additional element(s) (if any) are mere instructions to apply an except, field of use, and/or insignificant extra-solution activities (applied to Step 2A_Prong Two and Step 2B; see MPEP 2016.05(f)-(h)) and/or well-understood, routine, or conventional (applied to Step 2B; see MPEP 2106.05(d)) to facilitate the application of the abstract idea.
On the other hand, claim 2 is eligible because it recites “taking corrective action to repair, replace or recalibrate the semiconductor equipment.” This is a practical application of the abstract idea to improve the physical condition of semiconductor equipment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAMAKI et al. (US 20240111281 A1; hereinafter “TAMAKI”) in view of Gaduparthi et al. (US 20210365022 A1; hereinafter “Gaduparthi”).
Regarding claim 1, TAMAKI teaches a method for detecting anomalies resulting from maintenance activities on semiconductor equipment (i.e., “The present invention relates to a deterioration prediction system and a deterioration prediction method for semiconductor manufacturing equipment or semiconductor inspection equipment”; see [0001]), comprising:
receiving a time-series dataset corresponding to at least one measured parameter of the semiconductor equipment (i.e., “the estimation unit 111 retrieves and acquires data in the designated period among the time series data of the monitoring items stored in the storage device 102”; see [0064]);
segmenting the (i.e., “the division unit 112 divides the time series data into the plurality of periods with the time points when the setting is estimated to be changed as a boundary (step S403)”; see [0066]);
statistical modeling of the segmented (i.e., “the discrimination unit 113 approximates the discriminated trend component with the polygonal line regression model and stores the result in the storage device 102 as a trend component table”; see [0067]); and
identifying anomalies in the dataset based on the statistical modeling of the segmented (i.e., “the trend component diagnosis unit 121 calculates a deterioration index indicating whether the scanning electron microscope equipment 200 has deteriorated based on the trend component (step S405)”; see [0078]; “the deterioration prediction unit 120 determines whether the scanning electron microscope equipment 200 has deteriorated within the designated period based on the deterioration index calculated from at least the trend component among the trend component, the impulse component, the pulsation component, and the random component (step S409)”).
TAMAKI does not explicitly disclose:
cleaning the dataset; and
using the cleaned dataset for subsequent processing.
But Gaduparthi teaches:
cleaning the dataset (i.e., “technique such as moving average was applied on the obtained time-series data to remove noise, high negative values, or any unusual readings/observation and impute missing data”; see [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify TAMAKI in view of Gaduparthi, by incooping the step of cleaning the dataset; and using the cleaned dataset for subsequent processing as claimed. The rationale would be to help reducing the influence of noisy data.
Regarding claim 2, TAMAKI further teaches:
taking corrective action to repair, replace or recalibrate the semiconductor equipment (i.e., “When the time series data 501 exceeds the normal range, the scanning electron microscope equipment 200 deteriorates, and thus, the maintenance work is likely to be required”; see [0062]; “it can be predicted that the deterioration of the scanning electron microscope equipment 200 has progressed to the extent that the maintenance work is required”; see [0097]).
Regarding claim 9, TAMAKI further teaches:
the segmentation step further comprising evaluating a distribution of data points in the dataset for a plurality of segments of time (i.e., “the discrimination unit 113 approximates the discriminated trend component with the polygonal line regression model”; see [0067]).
Regarding claim 10, TAMAKI further teaches:
the segmentation step implemented using a change-point detection algorithm (i.e., “estimating the time point when the setting is changed with the fluctuations appearing in the acquired time series data discriminated into the fluctuations caused by changing the setting of the scanning electron microscope equipment 200 and the fluctuations caused by the deterioration of the equipment (step S402). In the example of FIG. 5, the time point t2 and the time point t3 are estimated as the time points where the settings are changed”; see [0065]).
Regarding claim 12, TAMAKI further teaches:
for each segment identified in the segmentation step, determine a linear fit for a plurality of data points in the segment (i.e., “the discrimination unit 113 approximates the discriminated trend component with the polygonal line regression model and stores the result in the storage device 102 as a trend component table”; see [0067]);
determine a slope and an intercept corresponding to each linear fit (see id.); and
evaluate differences in the determined slopes and intercepts (see id.).
Regarding claim 13, TAMAKI teaches a method for detecting anomalies resulting from maintenance activities on semiconductor equipment (i.e., “The present invention relates to a deterioration prediction system and a deterioration prediction method for semiconductor manufacturing equipment or semiconductor inspection equipment”; see [0001]), comprising:
receiving a time-series dataset having a plurality of data points corresponding to at least one measured parameter of the semiconductor equipment (i.e., “the estimation unit 111 retrieves and acquires data in the designated period among the time series data of the monitoring items stored in the storage device 102”; see [0064]);
identifying a plurality of segments in the dataset on the basis of a plurality of discernable shifts in the data points (i.e., “the division unit 112 divides the time series data into the plurality of periods with the time points when the setting is estimated to be changed as a boundary (step S403)”; see [0066]);
determining from the plurality of segments trends in the data points based on the segments (i.e., “the discrimination unit 113 approximates the discriminated trend component with the polygonal line regression model and stores the result in the storage device 102 as a trend component table”; see [0067]); and
determining whether the trends in the data points are expected or anomalous (i.e., “the trend component diagnosis unit 121 calculates a deterioration index indicating whether the scanning electron microscope equipment 200 has deteriorated based on the trend component (step S405)”; see [0078]; “the deterioration prediction unit 120 determines whether the scanning electron microscope equipment 200 has deteriorated within the designated period based on the deterioration index calculated from at least the trend component among the trend component, the impulse component, the pulsation component, and the random component (step S409)”).
TAMAKI does not explicitly disclose:
reducing noise in the dataset.
But Gaduparthi teaches:
reducing noise in the dataset (i.e., “technique such as moving average was applied on the obtained time-series data to remove noise, high negative values, or any unusual readings/observation and impute missing data”; see [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify TAMAKI in view of Gaduparthi, by incooping the step of reducing noise in the dataset as claimed. The rationale would be to help reducing the influence of noisy data.
Regarding claim 14, TAMAKI further teaches:
the step of determining whether the trends in the data points are expected or anomalous is implemented in a change-point detection algorithm (i.e., “a sum of the number of times the trend component is changed from increase to decrease and the number of times the trend component is changed from decrease to increase may be used as the deterioration index”; see [0078]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAMAKI in view of Gaduparthi and YONEMICHI et al. (US 20230138127 A1; hereinafter “YONEMICHI”).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
TAMAKI does not explicitly disclose:
the dataset comprising at least one statistical indicator identified as useful in evaluating performance of the semiconductor equipment.
But YONEMICHI teaches:
generating time series of statistical indicator useful in evaluating performance of the semiconductor equipment process from time series measurement data (i.e., “When the set of the statistical values for the time series data is input from the first calculator 232, the first generator 233 generates the statistical data based on the set of the statistical values for the time series data (step S3)”; see [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify TAMAKI in view of Gaduparthi, further in view of YONEMICHI, such that the dataset comprises at least one statistical indicator identified as useful in evaluating performance of the semiconductor equipment, as claimed. The rationale would be to help improving accuracy of feature value extraction of a time series data group measured during repetitive processing (see YONEMICHI, [0005]).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park et al (US 20150039117 A1) teaches a method of segmenting sensor data from semiconductor manufacturing facility, involving filtering the sensor data; segmenting the data; and linear fitting the data.
KIM et al. (US 20230367793 A1) teaches a method for extracting a feature value of time series data, involving segmenting the time series data and extracting feature values, such as a slope. a starting time point, and an ending time point.
CANTWELL (US 20190108422 A1) teaches a method for classifying an outlier in time series data collected by a sensor positioned in a substrate processing chamber, involving filtering the incoming time series data to remove any false positives in the time series data; and identifying sub-segments of the signal converted from the time series data that do not match an expected behavior.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights